Heard at the In Re Flynn Hearing

Here’s what may be the money quote from the en banc rehearing of the In Re Michael Flynn mandamus petition at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today. In explaining why the list of reasons for dismissal given to the trial court were sufficient but not necessarily exhaustive, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said—

The AG sees this in context of non-public information. It may be possible that the AG had before him information that he was not able to share with the Court.


UPDATE—See my comment below.

7 thoughts on “Heard at the In Re Flynn Hearing

  1. I’m so tired of hearing that it’s all about to come crashing down. It’s been nearly 4 years and no one is behind bars. Do you really believe they are waiting for the ultimate October surprise? It’s a fantasy at this point. Gisele Bündchen and Heidi Klum are more likely to drop in for drinks tomorrow night that any actual arrests.

    • You will note that AG Barr has specifically stated that Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not the targets of an investigation. While they may have done something illegal during the 2016 election cycle, I believe a case can be made that any such crimes were political and should be handled by public opinion rather than the courts.

      There’s a general, but not absolute, DoJ policy of not charging a candidate for federal office during the 60 days just before an election. Some of the potential Democrat VP nominees could be reasonable targets of the ongoing investigation, and it may be that a decision was taken not to charge the Dems’ VP candidate before the election in order to avoid any appearance of a politically motivated indictment. The DoJ now knows who the VP nominee will be and can proceed against other individuals.

      I don’t think we’ll see indictments as an October surprise. My guess is that if we see something, we’ll see it by 4 September. That’s the Friday before the Labor Day weekend start of the fall campaign season, and it’s 60 days prior to the election.

      • I normally find myself agreeing with you very often but your first paragraph leaves me scratching my head. “Political crimes” ought not be handled during an election? Whatever happened to “justice delayed is justice denied?” What happens when the “political crime” is seditious or treasonous and aimed at undermining the very election process we are now entering again?

        I hope I am simply misunderstanding your point, but the idea that Obama and Biden and others pretty obviously engaged in criminal behavior that would make Nixon blush yet should not be held accountable because of another election is peculiar to say the least.

        • The Nixon precedent of not charging former presidents will probably restrain the DoJ from seeking indictments against Obama.

          Biden may have to deal with the political fallout of having his name appear as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Russian Collusion Hoax. He’ll surely have to deal with son’s connections to China and Ukraine. BTW, even if he were charged with a crime, his lawyers would probably argue that he wasn’t mentally competent to assist in his own defense.

      • I doubt we will ever see anyone of the guilty pay for their crimes. The swamp defends its own and too much is at stake for the corrupt. Weighing the public interest against the interests of the swamp is a no brainer. The public will be ignored.

  2. Pingback: Wednesday Linkage « Bacon Time !!!!!!

Leave a Reply